Dear Ken and all,

Just to clarify things. As this was a design research list, I'd assumed the
usual design thinking approaches such as problem framing were appropriate.
Others, yourself, Klaus, Ranulph, Soumitri and Mauricio had already gone
down this path. I'd discussed financial issues so when I asked is there
something missing, I was implying missing about financial issues.

Mauricio asked about building a new research area and specifically,
>> 'how have you dealt with aligning graduate students with your research
areas while promoting their independent skills in research planning?'

There have been several different types of problem reframing in the answers
to Mauricio's question, e.g.:

Klaus reframed it in terms of his personal ethos about *mentoring* students.
Ken reframed it by suggesting *looking at supervision in a general way* and
reframing in terms of the whole supervisory phenomenon as seen from the
supervisors, students and more general viewpoints.
Soumitri reframed the question in terms of the *quality of fit between
topics and general categories of study*
Cameron reframed the problem in terms of the role of the research question
in different research training structures
Ken then reframed the question about the topic match with supervisors'
research expertise and interests in terms of differences in essence and
supervision practices between PhD and Masters.
Mauricio then reframed his own question in terms of presenting a *research
plan*

Answering Mauricio's original and reframed question, I realised this was
dominated by supervisory resource issues, and that these were being ignored.
I.e. the problem was being addressed as if supervisory resources were a
given. The most obvious way forward in design thinking terms is to reframe
the problem to include the possibility of changes to supervisory
resources, i.e. supervisory funding. Like the other responses, this is
simply a problem reframing approach. Its only difference is it reframes an
issue taken as given in the other answers

Possibilities for best practice in PhD supervision, like any other activity,
are directly shaped by the resources allocated. Understanding the resource
position requires looking at the organisations as a whole to understand the
money flows, rather than looking at sub-systems for which financial
decisions have already been made higher up in the organisation.

In the case of PhD supervision, I was pointing out that financial figures
relating to PhD support seems to be a significant shortfall in value offered
to PhD students. This is regardless of whether the universities are research
active or less research active. In fact, other figures I have seem to show
the problem is worse in research-active universities, in Australia, at
least. What I see of the financial structures and flows in design
departments in universities in other countries suggests they are similar
to those in Australia.

Mauricio's questions seemed to offer the opportunity to start to open up
that debate, because answering the questions he asked fundamentally depends
on the financial resources available.

This also opens up the possibilities of design solutions that include PhD
students and PhD supervisors (and possibly Deans of Research acting
together to apply pressure on university management to obtain substantial
increases in funding levels for PhD supervision.

I suggest that if more supervisory resources are available, there are more
and better answers available to Mauricio's questions. In part this is
because the PhD student's research training development and the supervisory
research interests and knowledge expertise become less pressured
financially.

Addressing Mauricio's questions by reframing them in the larger university,
commercial and national contexts also opens the door to other issues of
supervision that seem to me particularly important and increasingly urgent.
For example, how will things change as the current relatively short-lived
traditions of PhD supervision are displaced by online approaches that
involve human academics less. These include online research methods
training and automated online research methods selection and process
support. These have been in place in some institutions for some time. For
example, I developed and piloted one of these online systems of automated
research methods selection for a Management Information Systems design
doctoral program in 2002. Some universities are using automated research
training and self-test in research methods for research staff and
postgraduate research students to replace that aspect of human research
training and supervision (see, for example, the Epigeum research training
programs at http://www.epigeum.com ).

All of the above are shaped by how PhD supervision resources and funding
are managed.

It seems to me that part of answering Maurcio's questions involves
addressing these financial issues at a larger scale than they are currently
addressed. Part of any designed solution is likely to involve active
participation in ensuring PhD students are given value similar to the
payments they make or others make on their behalf.

To do this requires looking at the money flows at university scale and
beyond.

To Ken, I'm perplexed by some of your comments in your post. You know I've
managed teams large and small. I'm even more perplexed you referred me to
Murphy's lectures and theories after my criticism of them on this list not
long ago.

Best regards,
Terry

--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Sunday, 16 February 2014 5:23 AM
To: PhD-Design PhD-Design
Subject: Re: Supervisor - graduate student research

Dear Terry,

There were problems with the figures in your original post. You asked "is
there something missing?" There was. I answered. In an earlier post, I wrote
that it was not my interest to enter a debate here. I meant it.

My earlier notes addressed problems in doctoral supervision for the PhD in
design on a world-wide basis.

To explain why your figures didn't work, I gave Australian details because
you gave Australian examples.

Your latest post opens a discussion that is both too large and too small. It
is too large because it involves the financial nuts and bolts of the entire
Australian university system. You raise issues across the entirety of
education policy with respect to doctoral students.

At the same time, the discussion is too small because you focus on
educational finance in one nation - Australia. Mauricio's query and the
replies involve doctoral supervision on a world-wide basis, not Australia,
and generally not the financial side of education. I answered your last note
in response to your specific question: "is something missing?" I did not
expect on a lengthy detailed conversation on educational finance policy at
the national accounts level.

We can address the interesting issues here through our personal practices as
supervisors and through our direct engagement with PhD students.

The drifting shape of the thread resembles a pub game in which drinkers pass
the time by assembling "dream teams" of players selected among real players
on different sports teams.

If you've ever had the role of manager for a real team, "dream team" games
are not interesting. Facts and details get in the way, along with luck and
the constraints imposed on every range of choices by policy decisions at
other levels in university and government, and by voters who decide which
government to elect. There is also the role of timing for any organization
large enough to function as a complex adaptive system.

For several years, I managed a real team in the game of design education and
doctoral education. Most of the issues you raise involve decisions made at
higher levels of university in response to decisions made by government. The
questions you raise will interest folks in government, government service,
or higher education consulting. These financial accounting questions lie
outside my current interests.

What was missing in your earlier numbers was clear. I was happy to answer
your. If you want a thread on financial accounting and education policy for
Australian universities, please ask someone else. I am here to focus on
doctoral education in design and on questions in research and research
training.

For those who do wish to reflect on these issues, I recommend Peter Murphy's
2013 Agnes Heller Lecture titled Creativity Collapse. You'll find the
lecture and the PowerPoints in the "Teaching Documents" section of my
Academia page at:

https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

As Head of the School of Creative Arts at James Cook University, Peter
manages a real team in the game. His conclusions fit well with Mats
Alvesson's. While numbers, finance, and government policy have a great deal
to do with the problems we face, the real issues involve clarity of
conception.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830
462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China



-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------